The Daily Rant©
 January 2005 Archive

January 31, 2005

The voice of Daily Rant cannot be bought by the Bush administration for $250,000.  If they doubt this, they should just try it!


January 27, 2005

Condoleezza Rice confirmed 85 - 13...

January 23, 2005






Even though Johnny has been out of the public eye for almost twelve years, for those who shared their late nights with him for three decades there is a tremendous sense of loss.

January 22, 2005


January 20, 2005
A day which will live in infamy.

January 19, 2005

January 18, 2005

January 15, 2005

January 13, 2005

January 10, 2005

     Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times...

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels. 

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction. 

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms. 

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers. 

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel. 

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." 

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the
troops lack armor. 

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action. 

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture. 

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym
Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican. 

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force. 

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation. 

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and
defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it. 

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.  

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his
confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.  

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.   

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq.) 

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.

January 9, 2005

"If confirmed as attorney general, I will no longer represent only the White House; I will represent the United States of America and its people.  I understand the differences between the two roles.  In the former, I have been privileged to advise the president and his staff. In the latter, I would have a far broader responsibility: to pursue justice for all the people of our great nation; to see that the laws are enforced in a fair and impartial manner for all Americans."
- Alberto Gonzales at his confirmation hearing, 1/5/05

Say what?

So, you were excited about getting rid of Ashcroft as Attorney General?  Putting Gonzales's views of torture and the Geneva Convention aside, this is apparently a guy who thinks the president and his staff have a lesser responsibity to pursue for all the people of our great nation; to see that the laws are enforced in a fair and impartial manner for all Americans.  Some improvement.

January 4, 2005

January 3, 2005

God Bless America
Words and music by Irving Berlin

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

God Bless America?

Hey, I like the song and Iím as big a fan of Irving Berlin as anyone, but...

I have some questions for those who take the prayer part of God Bless America seriously.

What or who are you asking God to bless, the physical land or the American people?  If you are serious about this song, presumably you believe God is the creator of both.  Without this prayer, would God be inclined to turn his/her back on America?  With the prayer, does America fare better than those heathen lands which have no comparable prayer or whose people pray to the wrong God?  Are the lands and people who were devastated by the recent tsunami among those whose prayers were missing or misdirected?

America is now discussing spending huge sums for a tsunami warning system for the Atlantic. Would we not be better off printing the lyrics of God Bless America and requiring all Americans to sing the song (prayer) daily?

Will a prayer written for this country (which has been proclaimed to be a Christian country by some of President Bush's judicial nominees) be given due consideration by the Father of Christ when the prayer was written by a Jew?

Do non-Americans think us presumptuous when they hear this song?

Coming soon: God Save the Queen

T-Shirt seen in Key West:

So many right-wing Christian conservatives.
So few lions.

January 1, 2005